coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Orašje, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5. On 25 November 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against the company V. (“the employer”) and the insurance company C.O. in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages for a work-related injury in the amount of 96,700 Croatian kunas (HRK).
6.  The court held hearings on 2 June and 30 November 1999 and 21 February 2001.
7.  In the period between May 1998 and October 2000 the applicant filed four rush notes urging the court to schedule a hearing and speed up the proceedings.
8.  On 21 February 2001 the Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed on 6 March 2001 to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
9.  On 26 March 2001 the applicant applied to be exempted from the court fee for the appeal. Since it was the Municipal Court that was competent to decide on the applicant’s request for exemption, the County Court returned the case-file to it with a view to reaching a decision thereon. A hearing before the Municipal Court scheduled for 14 January 2003 was adjourned since the applicant had not received the summons due to his change of address. The next hearing scheduled for 3 June 2003 was adjourned owing to the illness of the judge assigned to hear the case. Lastly, a hearing at which the applicant gave a declaration of his income and assets was held on 13 May 2004. On 24 May 2004 the applicant was served with the decision in his favour exempting him from the court fee for the appeal. The case-file was then sent back to the County Court with a view to deciding on the applicant’s appeal.
10.  On 5 April 2005 the County Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 25 April 2005. No appeal on points of law (revizija) lay to the Supreme Court against this judgment (see paragraph 14 below).
11.  Meanwhile, on 23 July 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the civil proceedings.
12.  On 17 April 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and the applicant’s conduct. It found that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that he had applied for exemption from the court fee only after he had appealed against the first-instance judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Toruń, Poland.
5.  On 15 November 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed several car thefts.
6.  On 17 November 2001 the Toruń District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 15 February 2002. The court considered that his detention was justified by the existence of substantial evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. It also noted that the applicant had attempted to induce one of the witnesses to change her testimony.
7.  On 11 February 2002 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2002. It repeated the reasons previously given and added that the need to obtain additional evidence justified keeping the applicant in custody.
8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the District Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) until 30 March 2003.
9.  His appeal against the prolongation of his detention was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 15 January 2003.
10.  On 14 March 2003 the applicant and 22 other persons were indicted on charges of being members of an organised criminal group and having committed numerous car thefts.
11.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended several times by the Toruń District Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, for the same reasons as before.
12.  On 18 November 2003 the District Court refused the applicant’s application for release.
13.  On 3 February 2004 the Court of Appeal granted the District Court’s request to prolong the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2004. The court considered that the case was very complex and that it was necessary to examine voluminous evidence. It also found that the detention was justified by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant and the gravity of the charges. There was also the possibility that the applicant would attempt to tamper with evidence. His appeal against that decision was dismissed on 16 March 2004.
14.  On 11 May and 12 July 2004 the Court of Appeal again granted the District Court’s requests and ordered that the applicant be detained until 30 September 2004. It dismissed the applicant’s appeals against those decisions.
15.  On 18 August 2004 the District Court released the applicant under police supervision; it also prohibited him from leaving the country. The court considered that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder and depression and that his isolation from the outside world constituted a danger to his life and health. The court based its view on a report by two expert psychiatrists.
16.  The proceedings are still pending.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1970. The second applicant was born in 1965. Both of them are Ukrainian nationals, who live in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.
5.  On unspecified dates the applicants retired from the army. Upon retirement, the applicants became entitled to compensation for their uniforms and travel expenses. As these compensations remained unpaid, they instituted proceedings in the Kirovogradskiy District Court (Місцевий суд Кіровоградського району) against their former employer, a military unit. The first applicant instituted proceedings in 2003 seeking compensation for his uniform and travel expenses. The second applicant instituted proceedings in 2002 seeking compensation for his uniform and moral damage.
6.  On 10 September 2003 the court awarded the first applicant UAH 1,740.91[1] for the uniform and UAH 360[2] for travel expenses. On 20 February 2003 the court awarded the second applicant UAH 2,532.05[3] for the uniform and UAH 2,000[4] in compensation for moral damage.
7.  The above judgments have been enforced in part. The first applicant received UAH 360, the outstanding judgment debt being 1,740.91[5]. The second applicant received UAH 3,805.04, the outstanding judgment debt being UAH 732.05[6].
8.  In January and February 2004, the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice informed the applicants that the rest of the amounts awarded could not be paid due to the debtor's lack of funds and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was barred by the Law of 26 November 2001 “On the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property” (Закон України “Про введення мораторiю на примусову реалiзацiю майна”).
9.  On 18 June 2004 the Kirovograd Bailiffs' Service returned the writs of execution to the applicants.
4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the city of Kherson, Ukraine.
5.  On 20 September 1999 the Komsomolskiy District Court of Kherson allowed the applicant's claim against the State-owned enterprise “Khersonskyy Sudnobudivelnyy Zavod” (the “KSZ”), and ordered the latter to pay the applicant UAH 1,070[1] in salary arrears. On 6 October 1999 the Komsomolsky District Bailiffs' Service (the “Bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings.
6.  By decisions of 16 November 1999, 30 January 2002 and 15 May 2002, the Labour Disputes Commission allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the KSZ to pay the applicant a total of UAH 3283.09[2]. The Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings on 30 November 1999, 1 March 2002 and 13 June 2002 respectively.
7.  On 27 December 1999 the Kherson Regional Court of Arbitration instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor and, consequently, all enforcement proceedings were suspended. On 10 January 2001 the bankruptcy case was terminated and the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
8.  In 2001 a substantial part of the debtor's assets was attached by the Bailiffs; however its sale was barred by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, which banned the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State held at least 25% of the share capital.
9.  On 6 May 2001, 6 December 2001, 17 May 2002 and 1 March 2004 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the decisions in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor's lack of funds.
10.  On 23 June 2005 the applicant was paid the amounts due to him in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
5.  On 10 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and extortion. He was also suspected of being a member of an organised criminal group.
6.  On 12 March 1999 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained until 9 June 1999. The court found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question.
7.  On 1 June 1999 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. It referred to the interests of the pending investigation, such as the need to obtain additional evidence. The court also considered that the applicant, if released, could induce witnesses to give false testimony.
8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the District Court for the same reasons as before.
9.  On 27 August 1999 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) lodged with the Warsaw District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant and six other persons. They were indicted of several counts of robbery, extortion, and membership of an organised criminal group.
10.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 6 March, 26 June, 28 September and 30 November 2001. The court considered that keeping the applicant in custody was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. It was also necessary as he could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings or induce witnesses to give false testimony. The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed.
11.  On 16 January 2002 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant of several counts of robbery and extortion committed in an organised criminal group. The applicant was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment.
12.  The Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the first-instance judgment on 6 February 2003.
13.  On 28 October 2003 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Rzeszów.
5.  In 1992 the applicant, who was a pensioner, received from the Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) a substantial amount of money (over 57,000,000 old Polish zlotys) by way of adjustment of his pension.
6.  Subsequently, the Social Security Board found that the sum had been awarded to the applicant by mistake and started to deduct money from his pension. The applicant instituted proceedings against the Board. According to the applicant, in 1996 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal allowed his action and found that the Board’s deductions had been illegal.
7.  On 28 July 1997 the Social Security Board instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) claiming the remaining sum of PLN 10,000.
8.  Between 7 November 1997 and 24 February 1998 the court held four hearings.
9.  On 10 March 1998 the court gave judgment in which it allowed the plaintiff’s action. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
10.  On 9 June 1998 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) held a hearing at which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 6 August 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
11.  On 11 April 2001, sitting in camera, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 25 February 1999 the applicant was acquitted of a criminal offence. He initiated court proceedings against the Ministry of Finance claiming compensation for unlawful prosecution.
8.  On 5 May 2000 the Căuşeni District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him 951 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 84 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for pecuniary damage caused. The claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was rejected.
9.  On 6 July 2000 the Chişinău Tribunal awarded MDL 40,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused and upheld the District Court’s award in respect of pecuniary damage.
10.  On 21 November 2000 the Court of Appeal reduced the award for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 20,000 (the equivalent of EUR 1,917 at the time) and upheld the rest of the judgment. This judgment was final and enforceable.
11.  On 18 January 2001 the Prosecutor General requested the annulment of all previous judgments and the reduction of the award for non-pecuniary damage, as part of an extraordinary procedure.
12.  On 21 February 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request and annulled all the previous judgments. It adopted a new judgment whereby it reduced the award for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 2,000.
13.  That judgment was final and enforceable. It was enforced in August 2002 (the applicant received the equivalent of EUR 84 for pecuniary damage and EUR 150 in respect of non-pecuniary damage).
14.  The applicant submitted that Government decision no. 59 of 19 January 1998 (see paragraph 15 below) prohibited the forced execution of judgments against State property unless the Ministry of Finance had given its agreement. The Government have not commented on this statement.
7.  At the relevant time, the applicant was the head of the financial department of the Kirkovo municipality.
8.  A preliminary investigation was opened against her on 28 September 1999 and she was arrested. After having fainted, she was released on the same day and was taken for treatment to a medical facility.
9.  On 30 September 1999 the applicant was once again arrested, charged with misappropriation of funds and abuse of office and detained on remand upon a decision of an investigator, approved by the Kurdzhali Prosecutor's Office.
10.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant filed an appeal against her detention.
11.  On 8 October 1999 the applicant was brought before the Kurdzhali Regional Court in the context of the examination of her appeal. The domestic court, by majority, dismissed her appeal as it found that she had been charged with a serious offence which entailed mandatory detention.
12.  In response to another appeal against her detention, on 21 October 1999 the Kurdzhali Regional Court released the applicant on bail as it found, inter alia, that her son had developed a serious medical condition as a result of his mother's detention.
13.  On 28 February 2002 an indictment was entered against the applicant with the Momchilgrad District Court for misappropriation of funds and abuse of office.
14.  In a judgment of 7 May 2004 of the Momchilgrad District Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against her. The judgment entered into force on 20 May 2004.
6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Novomoskovsk, Tula Region.
7.  On 21 September 2001 the Novomoskovskiy Town Court of the Tula Region convicted the applicant, a school teacher, of cruel treatment of his pupils and sentenced him to one year and six months' imprisonment, suspended. The applicant and his counsel were present at the hearing. The court heard statements from a number of witnesses and victims and examined a transcript of a meeting of the school disciplinary committee.
8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment on points of fact.
9.  On 26 October 2001 the Tula Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant was not present at the hearing. The appeal court reviewed the applicant's conviction both on points of law and on points of fact. The prosecutor, who was present at the hearing, submitted that the conviction should stand. The appeal court did not hear any witnesses and there is no evidence that any were summoned.
10.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant received a copy of the appeal judgment.
11.  On 14 June 2005, following an application for supervisory review lodged by a deputy prosecutor of the Tula Region on 10 June 2005, a judge of the Tula Regional Court decided to institute supervisory review proceedings. The judge stated that in the absence of any evidence that the applicant had been duly notified of the appeal hearing on 26 October 2001, the examination of his appeal in his absence had violated his defence rights. The applicant was notified of the decision to institute supervisory review proceedings and sent his written pleadings to the court on 22 June 2005.
12.  On 27 June 2005 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court, having examined the case under the supervisory review procedure, quashed the appeal judgment of the Tula Regional Court of 26 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination on appeal. The Presidium noted that among the documents in the case file there was a notification of the appeal hearing dated 11 October 2001. The applicant had not appeared at the hearing and, later, in his numerous complaints repeatedly stated that he had never received the notification. The case file contained no conclusive evidence that the applicant had been duly notified of the hearing. The Presidium found that in these circumstances the examination of the applicant's appeal in his absence had violated his defence rights.
13.  On 20 July 2005 the Tula Regional Court examined the case on appeal. The applicant was duly notified of the hearing, but did not appear. The appeal court upheld the findings of fact of the Novomoskovskiy Town Court. However, it set aside the judgment of 21 September 2001 and terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of the expiry of the statutory time-limits.
6.  The applicant was born in 1966.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  On 13 November 2000 the applicant was arrested in the context of criminal proceedings for robbery and blackmail. His detention was subsequently authorised and extended by a court.
9.  On 19 November 2001 a prosecutor adopted a decision to censor (cenzūruoti) the applicant's letters in accordance with Article 15 of the Detention on Remand Act. In order to justify the decision, the prosecutor referred to the danger that the applicant might attempt to influence witnesses and victims of the criminal proceedings.
10.  On 22 April 2002 the Panevėžys City District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and blackmail. The final decision in this regard was taken by the Supreme Court on 24 December 2002.
11.  A further decision on the censorship of the applicant's correspondence was taken by a prosecutor on 7 February 2003 on the same grounds, in the context of another criminal case concerning a fresh episode of alleged robbery and blackmail.
12.  On 1 April 2003 the prosecutor decided to discontinue the censorship in that the investigation had been concluded.
13.  For most of the above period the applicant was held at the Šiauliai Remand Prison - with certain interruptions due to his temporary transfers to other prisons. According to the Government, during the period from 19 November 2001 to 1 April 2003, a total number of 121 letters received or sent by the applicant were censored at the Šiauliai Remand Prison. 113 of these were received from or addressed to the applicant's wife. The remaining 8 letters were received from or addressed to: a) GB, a partner of the applicant's co-suspect; b) SA, the applicant's co-suspect; c) KV, a detainee and the applicant's acquaintance; d) AE and GG, the applicant's acquaintances.
14.  On 1 September 2003 the Panevėžys City District Court convicted the applicant of a fresh episode of robbery and blackmail. The final decision in this respect was taken by the Supreme Court on 24 February 2004.
15.  The applicant was again convicted of another crime by the Šiauliai Regional Court on 14 January 2005. He currently serves his sentence at the Marijampolė Prison.
8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Tampere, Finland.
9.  On 22 May 1998 the Häme Tax Office (verotoimisto, skattebyrån) requested the applicant, who ran a car-repair workshop, to submit his observations regarding some alleged errors in his value-added tax (VAT) declarations (arvonlisävero, mervärdesskatt) for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
10.  On 9 July 1998 the Tax Office found that there were deficiencies in the applicant’s book-keeping in that, for instance, receipts and invoices were inadequate. The Tax Office made a reassessment of the VAT payable basing itself on the applicant’s estimated income, which was higher than the income he had declared. It ordered him to pay, inter alia, tax surcharges (veronkorotus, skatteförhöjning) amounting to 10% of the reassessed tax liability (the additional tax surcharges levied on the applicant totalled 1,836 Finnish Marks, corresponding to 308.80 euros).
11.  The applicant appealed to the Uusimaa County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) (which later became the Helsinki Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen)). He requested an oral hearing and that the tax inspector as well as an expert appointed by the applicant be heard as witnesses. On 1 February 2000 the Administrative Court took an interim decision inviting written observations from the tax inspector and after that an expert statement from an expert chosen by the applicant. The tax inspector submitted her statement of 13 February 2000 to the Administrative Court. The statement was further submitted to the applicant for his observations. On 25 April 2000 the applicant submitted his own observations on the tax inspector’s statement. The statement of the expert chosen by him was dated and submitted to the court on the same day.
12.  On 13 June 2000 the Administrative Court held that an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary in the matter because both parties had submitted all the necessary information in writing. It also rejected the applicant’s claims.
13.  On 7 August 2000 the applicant requested leave to appeal, renewing at the same time his request for an oral hearing. On 13 March 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court refused him leave to appeal.